I have answered many moon conspiracy threads and started a few. I really think this article has a lot of content that certainly is good ammo for
hoaxers. Of course it's just facts, or not? Put this on your tool bar for future reference. At least this should demonstrate how NASA hsa bent the
tax payer over instead of getting on with space travel.
"Snips from an article in Space Daily 2003
We had of course all seen the 1968 Kubrick/Clarke movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the facilities depicted there seemed entirely reasonable. In our
lifetimes, we expected to see hotels in orbit, translunar shuttles operated by commercial airlines, and settlements on the Moon. Only the alien
monolith was questionable.
None of this has happened.
Despite cutbacks, NASA has spent a total of $450 billion since Apollo 11 (adjusted for inflation to 2003 dollars). That very large sum was more than
enough to fund the developments that Wernher von Braun predicted for the end of the 20th Century, but we have not even started on any of them.
If it had been spent wisely, as seed money to stimulate commercial development, we could have established a growing, self-sustaining extraterrestrial
enterprise, offering opportunities for thousands of people to live and work off Earth - but the sad truth is that we have less capability in human
spaceflight now than in 1970.
In 1969, we landed on the Moon, but now we cannot leave low Earth orbit (LEO). NASA claimed that the shuttle would be fifteen times cheaper to fly
(per pound of payload) than the Saturn vehicles used in Apollo, but it is actually three times more expensive.
The average cost of each flight is a staggering $760 million. After a mission, the time required to prepare a shuttle for the next flight was supposed
to be less than two weeks, but in practice tens of thousands of technicians spend three to six months rebuilding each "reusable" shuttle after every
flight. Worst of all, the shuttle is a needlessly complex, fragile and dangerous vehicle, which has killed fourteen astronauts so far.
In 1973, we had a space station called Skylab, with berths for three astronauts. NASA let it reenter and break up over Western Australia. A second
Skylab was built, which could have become the Earth terminal of a lunar transportation system.
It is now a tourist attraction at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, and the Saturn V to launch it is nothing more than a monstrous lawn
ornament, moldering on its side at Johnson Space Center (JSC).
They are surprised and disappointed that the public are unimpressed by the shuttle and ISS, despite their technical virtuosity. The Giant Leap
delusion persists today, in the form of proposals for a flags-and-footprints mission to Mars.
In reality, of course, Apollo existed because Jack Kennedy and Nikita Khruschev chose to make space a principal arena for competition between the
superpowers. The purposes of the program were to overcome the perceived Soviet lead in space, and to foreclose the possibility that the USSR would
reach the Moon first and claim it as Soviet territory. No Congress was willing to spend more than the minimum needed to achieve those objectives.
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 relieved concerns about Soviet hegemony by banning weapons and territorial claims on the Moon. This allowed Congress to
respond to Lyndon Johnson's simultaneous expansion of social programs and the war in VietNam by slashing funding for NASA. As shown in Figure 1, the
budget peaked in 1966, and then fell precipitously.
Despite these obvious trends, NASA developed grandiose visions of the post-Apollo program, which culminated in the Space Task Group Report of 1969.
The STG proposed three options. The most ambitious called for
a reusable Earth-to-orbit shuttle and a small space station by 1975;
a reusable orbit-to-orbit tug and a lunar orbit station in 1976;
a nuclear-powered tug and a lunar surface base in 1978;
a 50-man space base in Earth orbit in 1980;
a manned Mars mission in 1981;
and expansion of the Earth orbit space base to 100 people by 1985.
The other options retained all these objectives, but reduced the cash flow by delaying some of them for up to five years.
Figure 1 also shows the funding profiles required by the STG proposals (in 2003 dollars). Richard Nixon responded immediately, making it perfectly
clear that the whole STG Report was sheer fantasy, and that NASA should expect less money, not more. "
I will see what more I can find.
Please refrain from capitalizing unnecessarily in Thread Titles .
It tends to confuse the Site format.
Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
[edit on Tue Apr 7 2009 by Jbird]